We're in Freeport, near Surfside beach, good seafood too. I would love to have a ClutchFans group come, or just come visit you would definately enjoy it in spite of the pastor.
But they couldn't of crucified him if it wasn't for the conservative's love of the death penalty. moral - an intended action can have the opposite consequence.
I see you as misinterpreting the report. Regardless of steep drop off in investments, regardless of Dot-Com bursts (lol) the economy was STILL growing into Bushs first term. This will go hand in hand in response to Mad Max too. Yes I do believe that a president can cause drastic change with IMPENDING policy. The whole world knew Bush was going to cut taxes for the rich. Knew he was going to spend out his ass, and new the surplus was going to turn into a giant fooking deficit real fast. As I remember it took him 1 measly year to turn the biggest Surplus ever and turn it into the largest deficit ever. Why wouldnt business, economies, and the US immediately start to slow down? Is it mere coincedence that we went from Biggest surplus ever, low unemployment, and a wealthier America under Clinton, to a Recessed, over spending, poorer America in Bush's first year?
I don't think any objective economist would agree with you. I don't think I misinterpreted anything. Nowhere in the report does it mention Bush's impending tax cuts causing any recession.
Well then just stick to the first paragraph. THE economy was still in an UPSWING and growing well into Bushs first term. Cant really argue any of that now can you.
Yes. I can't. The expansion lasted up to March,2001. A whole 2 months into GW's presidency. By your logic - he deserves credit for the recovery too - since it occured during his term. There are plenty of things that I'm not happy with GW about. The recession just isn't something I can objectively pin on him. I also don't give him much credit for the recovery. How much of the recent GDP growth was just increased government spending?
Langal...Im trying to get you to see that the Economy was still growing into Bush's term. That the mythical DOT Com bubble was not killing the economy as some Right leaning peeps would lead the world to believe was Clintons responsiblity. The Economy was NOT receeding, it was not at a stand still, it was growing. I firmly believe that a WH's policies, or in this case, impending policies, can very quickly change the aspects of American economy. Bush does deserve credit for the recovery, after what 5 abysmal years. But that is another fight.
Every enemy/competitor of the United States on the international scene loves Bush as well, but for entirely different reasons. He is loved by more people that you think
God, we had like 10 threads about this, anyone with some basic knowledge about the economy know economy is cyclical, it goes from recession to recovery to growth to overheat then repeats. Presidents do not have that much control over it. The feds can have some control, but they can only adjust. (Do you even understand how monetary policy works?) Clinton didn't create the bubble, and Bush didn't cause the recession. To say the economy would drop off in two month because a president's impending policies is laughable (business will stop capital spending becasue Bush might be cutting income taxes in the future? How absurd is that?). Please go back to school and take Economics 101, because you certainly have NO clue on this subject.
I see a lot of concern in this thread about the short-term swings of the economy and/or markets. I would like to offer another perspective from which to view the country's economic health.... In the past 3.5 years, government spending has gone so crazy that the total national debt owed by the US govt. has increased by more than 50% in just those 3.5 years - it has increased by more than $3 TRILLION - to a staggering $7.8 TRILLION today. Suffice it to say, whichever month the boom ended and who got us into or out of the recession is inconsequential now. The real issue is what exactly lies ahead. Fortunately, most of our corporations have cleaned up their balance sheets in the past few years by cutting workforces, getting rid of some debt, restructuring, etc. This does not include automakers, airlines, or mortgage co's of course! Anyhow, state and municipal govts have also gotten a temporary boost from increased property tax revenues. But coming to consumers, they now as of last month actually have a NEGATIVE savings rate. And this with the average American already holding more than $9k in credit card debt. Not to mention many are drowning in mortgage debt that they had no business holding in the first place. This all looms as said consumer comprises more than 70% of our GDP and is the essential lifeblood and engine of our economy. Suffice it say yet again, that the balance sheets of the consumer and federal govt make our economy a house of cards. And the only way to keep the house of cards from falling has been for the federal govt to keep printing dollars out of thin air and spend it. This has caused the dollar to lose ~50% of it value in only 4 years. And understandably, the rest of the world holding their reserves denominated in dollars does not like this. Just this week, Middle Eastern countries and Russia put discussions on the table to start selling their oil in Euros next year. Will it happen? I don't know. But if it does, our house of cards will look like Gulfport.
I'm just pointing out that your insistence to blame Bush for the recession is not even something the paper you cited claims. The authors of that paper would never make such a partisan-motivated claim. No serious economist ever would.
God, we had like 10 threads about this, anyone with some basic knowledge about the economy know economy is cyclical, it goes from recession to recovery to growth to overheat then repeats. I do not disagree but ... At the time (2001), the US economy had been a record 8 years in expansion. A year before the recession, the stock market had a major correction (tech bubble burst). The US economy had slowed down but did not go into a recession. Literally the first time W does is office is trash talk the economy for his own political ends (tax cuts). Very unpresidential. As far as I will go is to say that W's trash talking may have been the straw that broke the camel's back. We have been in recovery since Oct/Nov 2001 almost 4 years. We are due for our next recession, maybe. We saw a reliable four year economic cycle in the 70s/80s. I am unsure that we are close to recession now. We are in a bit a choppy water since fuel prices are causing some inflationary pressures, but a pending recession is not guaranteed. We will see.
my bet is we're not heading for a recession. growth may dip a bit. but not a recession. fuel prices should fall a bit soon as supply gets back on line in the Gulf. when it does, 1.75 for regular unleaded is going to seem sooo much better than it did before. and yes, dreamshake...as no worries just said...there was a "major correction." some call that the burst of the dotcom bubble...because that's what fueled the situation calling for a correction. there was no substance behind it. as it turned out, business principles still mattered, whether in cyberspace or in the corner store.
When politcos talk about the economy, it's all rhetoric and has no basis in reality. Getting a second term in the White House has as much to do with how the economy is doing (luck) as anything. If that fails - then bring up gay-marriage, flag-burning, pledge of allegiance, school prayer (in that order) to fire up your base.
Consumer confidence is a core driver of the economy - and Presidents can significantly influence consumer confidence. Bush I never inspired confidence in the economy, so when things went bad, it snowballed. It's no coincidence that Clinton's "better future" talks about believing in something better led to increased consumer confidence, which generally correlates to increased spending and a strong expansion. A President or candidate talking down the economy is going to raise people's apprehension and cut their spending, thus potentially making it a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Actually regardless whether Bush inspired confidence in general public, US consumers have been spending beyond their means for a long time now, so I don't think Clinton or anyone else can make the consumer spend anymore, we already have negative savings rate, and that's not Bush or Clinton's fault.
I am very dissappointed in Bush! b/c of all the money he is spending in Iraq for no reason to begin with, i have to pay 35% more in college tuition! he has stopped everything, he even cut levy repair by 70% two years ago, thats why the levys in NO were easy to break!
